I never claimed that pain was a mental disorder. I merely pointed out that there are fields of medicine other than psychiatry where there are no "objective biological measurements" for a condition.

What “fields of medicine” are you talking about? Name them. Then tell us how that is supposed to relate.

If the only . . . causes of mental disorders were biological

The only scientific justification for prescribing a psychiatric drug is to correct a biochemical imbalance, exactly like the only scientific justification for prescribing insulin is to correct the biochemical imbalance of diabetes and the only scientific justification for prescribing thyroxine is to correct the biochemical imbalance of hypothyroidism.

When you cannot show that a psychiatric drug corrects a biochemical imbalance then you cannot articulate a scientific justification for prescribing the drug.

No psychiatric drug has been shown to correct the alleged biochemical imbalance of any mental disorder.

Therefore, there is no scientific justification for prescribing psychiatric drugs.

Notice that’s a deduction. Here’s another one:

P1: A hypothesis that cannot be falsified by objective methods is not a scientific hypothesis.

P2: The hypothesis of the existence of a disease that is neither defined nor diagnosed on the basis of objective biological measurements cannot be falsified by objective methods.

If any disorder or disease were shown to be caused by a biochemical lesion, then there is no scientific justification for not defining and diagnosing that disorder or disease on the basis of objective biological measurements that can demonstrate or rule out that biochemical lesion in a person. No mental disorder is defined or diagnosed on the basis of objective biological measurements.

You didn't even read the links did you? The female hormonal changes study I referenced showed a mearsuable biological component to a mentall illness

It sounds like you’re still to conflate “primary mental disorders” with “[mental disorders] due to a general medical condition” and “substance-induced mental disorders”. What is the purpose for your linking to that webpage? What conclusion did you deduce from any scientific evidence? Just note the scientific evidence, and state the conclusion that you deduced.

Tell us what you are referring to as “the etiology behin[d] what organic mental disorders/organic brain syndrome,” and “the reasons” the “organic mental disorders” were “removed”.

Did you or did you not ask if I had ever heard of "organic brain syndrome"? I was answering the question.

Here are the questions I asked you:

Are you familiar with the DSM's distinction between "primary mental disorders," "[mental disorders] due to a general medical condition" and "substance-induced mental disorders"? I noticed you linked to a webpage about "female hormonal changes".

Are you familiar with the DSM-III-R’s “organic mental disorders,” how these were developed, and why the concept of “organic mental disorders” was dropped?

Your claim that you are “familiar with those distinctions and the etiology behing [sic] what [sic] organic mental disorders/organic brain syndrome and the reasons it was removed from the DSM IV-TR” has prompted me to ask questions about your claim.

This is your opportunity for you to demonstrate your knowledge and inform us about the DSM-IV’s three categories of mental disorder “types”, as well as about how the APA came to formulate the concept of “organic mental disorders” and why the APA then (very quickly) rejected the idea of the existence of “organic mental disorders”. I think such a discussion might be productive.

For instance, what was the objective evidence that lead to the APA’s formulation of the Organic Alcohol-induced Idiosyncratic Intoxication mental disorder?

That was a very short-lived mental disorder, wasn’t it? Isn’t it funny how mental disorders come and go, whereas actual biological diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, continue to result in the same morbidity and mortality regardless of whether some committee of people recognizes the disorder as a disorder or not.

The APA’s former mental disorder of “Homosexuality” became a mental disorder by vote of a committee, and became no longer a mental disorder by vote of a committee. In contrast, a committee voting to eliminate, say, lung cancer as a disease does not have any effect on the disease, and lung cancer would continue to result in the same morbidity and mortality--that is, would remain a disease--regardless of any such vote by a committee to eliminate lung cancer as a disease. Right?

That’s an important distinction between actual biological disorders--whose diagnosis is premised on objective biological measurements--and “spiritual disorders” that are not premised on any objective biological measurements. Right?

See what an informative discussion the topic leads to? I’m not sure why you are resistant to discuss it.

The DSM-IV makes various statements such as “[c]linical presentations and resulting impairment may differ across cultures,” and “[i]deas that may appear delusional in one culture . . . may be commonly held in another culture,” etc. You don’t know of any symptoms or combination of symptoms listed in the DSM that are universally indicative of any mental disorder, do you?

No, I don't and I fail to see why that is a problem.

Again, it is an essential distinction between actual biological diseases that are diagnosed on the basis of objective biological measurements and the non-falsifiable mental disorders that the DSM lists. Right?

One would never find a physicians committee pointing out that the “impairment” from an actual biological disease, say, diabetes mellitus, is different or even non-existent in another culture. Actual biological diseases, in contrast the non-falsifiable mental disorders, are not culturally specific in their symptoms, morbidity or existence.

BTW: you didn't find that any of the following statements are untrue, did you?

1.[T]here is no mental disorder listed in the DSM that is defined on the basis of objective biological measurements.

2.No mental disorder is diagnosed on the basis of objective biological measurements.

3.Whether or not a person needs any psychiatric drug is not determined by the results of any objective biological measurements.

4.No psychiatric drug has ever been shown to correct any biochemical imbalance.

5.Effectiveness of psychiatric drugs is not determined by objective biological measurements.

1. True. So what?

2. True. So what? No one has ever claimed they should be. Biological causes are not the only causes of mental illness.

3. True. So what? Neither is pain but doctors still prescribe LOTS of different pain medications.

4. True. So what? There are plenty of studies out there proving the effectiveness of psychotropic medications however. Google "Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness"

5. True. So what? The effectiveness is determined by the subjective reports of the patient. Why do you think this is bad?

You will notice that at least a couple of the true statements that I have noted here are premises in deductions.

Frankly, Sigmund, I am not impressed by the acuity or insightfulness of someone who is apparently trying to defend the diagnoses of “mental disorders” and the prescribing of psychiatric drugs, yet who doesn’t grasp the relevancy and importance of facts such as that no psychiatric drug has ever been shown to correct any biochemical imbalance.

BTW: Do you even have any idea why MOAIs and SSRIs work?

The most recent PDR that I have perused is several years old, and I don’t have it at hand, but I believe I recall that for at least some of the drugs that are called MAOIs and SSRIs that I have looked up, it says that the exact mechanism of action is “unknown”. (But I might be wrong.)

I never claimed that pain was a mental disorder. I merely pointed out that there are fields of medicine other than psychiatry where there are no "objective biological measurements" for a condition.

What “fields of medicine” are you talking about? Name them. Then tell us how that is supposed to relate.

Pain management is part of the medical field.

If the only . . . causes of mental disorders were biological

The only scientific justification for prescribing a psychiatric drug is to correct a biochemical imbalance, exactly like the only scientific justification for prescribing insulin is to correct the biochemical imbalance of diabetes and the only scientific justification for prescribing thyroxine is to correct the biochemical imbalance of hypothyroidism.

This is your opinion, nothing more. There are thousands of studies showing the efficacy of psychotropic medications.

When you cannot show that a psychiatric drug corrects a biochemical imbalance then you cannot articulate a scientific justification for prescribing the drug.

No psychiatric drug has been shown to correct the alleged biochemical imbalance of any mental disorder.

Therefore, there is no scientific justification for prescribing psychiatric drugs.

Notice that’s a deduction. Here’s another one:

P1: A hypothesis that cannot be falsified by objective methods is not a scientific hypothesis.

P2: The hypothesis of the existence of a disease that is neither defined nor diagnosed on the basis of objective biological measurements cannot be falsified by objective methods.

If any disorder or disease were shown to be caused by a biochemical lesion, then there is no scientific justification for not defining and diagnosing that disorder or disease on the basis of objective biological measurements that can demonstrate or rule out that biochemical lesion in a person. No mental disorder is defined or diagnosed on the basis of objective biological measurements.

P1: A hypothesis that cannot be falsified by objective methods is not a scientific hypothesis.

P2: The hypothesis of the existence of pain that is neither defined nor diagnosed on the basis of objective biological measurements cannot be falsified by objective methods.

You didn't even read the links did you? The female hormonal changes study I referenced showed a mearsuable biological component to a mentall illness

It sounds like you’re still to conflate “primary mental disorders” with “[mental disorders] due to a general medical condition” and “substance-induced mental disorders”. What is the purpose for your linking to that webpage? What conclusion did you deduce from any scientific evidence? Just note the scientific evidence, and state the conclusion that you deduced.

Well, I'm glad I "did not provide any evidence whatsoever that from a history or physical one can acquire any information about whether a person has any biological imbalance that fluoxetine corrects, or how much fluoxetine would correct this alleged biochemical imbalance" because I wan't trying to provide that.

Here are the two questions I asked that you quoted in #237:

THIS is the qusetion you asked that I responded to:

""What does one learn from a history or physical to rule out prescribing, say, fluoxetine?"

There was a specific context for that question. The context concerned the issue that I raised with Dot and Irene, in which I pointed out that the issues they were discussing about psychiatric drugs “no longer working” for a person, and the “trial and error” method of prescribing psychiatric drugs, are problems that arise due to the anti-scientific nature of psychiatric drug prescribing.

You claimed that something was “wrong” with I said, yet you have not been able to defend your assertion that anything I have said is in error.

The question I asked that you have just quoted occurred in #240. The question occurred in the context of 3 sentences. You lifted the question and provided a response out of context. Here are the 3 sentences of mine in #240:

Tell us what one determines from a history or a physical about the biological requirements for or effects of a psychiatric drug in that person.

Nothing. Nor did I claim one would find that out from a history or physical.

For instance, notice in the above list of psychiatric drugs that are disproportionately associated with violence, there are 11 drugs that are prescribed as “anti-depressants”. For instance, notice in the above list of psychiatric drugs that are disproportionately associated with violence, there are 11 drugs that are prescribed as “anti-depressants”. What does one learn from a history or physical to rule out prescribing, say, fluoxetine?

Pay close attention to that first sentence, which is a request that you did not respond to; I underlined a key phrase for your benefit here. The question that you lifted out of context cannot be read or answered out of the context of that first sentence. Indeed, the subsequent 2 sentences are just attempts to further clarify the request in the first sentence.

Notice that in the the context of the question I asked, I was clearly not asking about what subjectively assessed behaviors a clinician might assume to be true and put into a history would affect a psychiatrist’s decision to prescribe fluoxetine to a person.

And, in noting the prior context of my question (being my response and question to Dot and Irene), I subsequently even pointed out to you that taking a history is not an objective method of acquiring information. Writing down what a person tells you is not any way equivalent or similar to an objective biological measurement. As noted, if I told you that I am a heterosexual man who has never hit my wife, you have not determined that I am a heterosexual man who has never hit my wife.

It is stunning to me how unfamiliar with the objective methods of science people who involved in the psychiatric industry tend to be. In all of our discussion here, it seems that you have not really grasped the absolute necessity of objective biological measurements when claiming that disorder X is (or is caused by) a biochemical imbalance and that drug Y corrects this biochemical imbalance. Have you understood this fact yet?

You have not demonstrated that there is an "absolute necessity of objective biological measurements when claiming that disorder X is (or is caused by) a biochemical imbalance and that drug Y corrects this biochemical imbalance." When you provide evidence from the medical literature that this is anything other than your opinion I will respond.

No, I don’t. And take it that if you knew of any “problem” with my argument, you would have pointed it out. Right?

Do you recognize that mine is a valid argument? Do you know how to critique a valid argument?

I do see the problem with your P3. The problem is that it is false. Therefore, the argument you have stated, unlike my argument, is not sound. Moreover, your P3 is certainly not analogous to my P3--my P3 can be shown to be true.

I already asked you whether you are able to deduce any conclusion about “mental disorders” from your claims about pain. The fact is that even if you were able to formulate a deduction of your own, you would not be able to deduce anything about mental disorders from your claims about “pain”. Arguments from analogy--which you are trying to suggest, and which you probably would have stated explicitly if you were able to articulate an inductive argument--are never valid, because arguments from analogy are not deductions. Moreover, the Criterion of Adequacy for any argument from analogy depends on the similarities between the two things claimed to be analogous (plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inducti...). Arguments from analogy are oftentimes literally logical fallacies.

So, before showing that your P3 is false, I want to point out why your attempt to suggest an analogy between “pain” and the APA’s “mental disorders” is fallacious. At first, I found your comments about “pain” kind of interesting--I thought your claims about “pain” might pose some challenge to the multitude of facts that I have noted demonstrating the anti-scientific nature of psychiatry and psychiatric drug-prescribing. But after just a little investigation and reflection, I realized that your attempt to make an analogy between “pain” and mental disorders is not interesting, it’s ridiculous.

Let’s begin with the fact that, in contrast to mental disorders, 100% of the average sample of humans experience the sensation of pain, and the sensation of pain is a frequent experience throughout any individual’s life. And if there is any human who has failed to experience the sensation of pain, then I can correct that with a pin or a Bic lighter. If such person still does not experience the sensation of pain, then I can predict what that person is missing physically, which can be confirmed by direct biological measurements. That person is missing specialized cells called nociceptors. Nociceptors are primary afferent neurons that are preferentially sensitive to noxious stimuli.

Notice how much more we already know here about the biology of pain than has been shown about the alleged biology of mental disorders.

There is a common reaction among 100% of humans (as well as among other animals with nociceptors) to pain stimuli. If we were to blindfold 100 or 10,000 people, without telling them anything else about this experiment, and put a flame beneath their hands, 100% of the average sample would retract their hands from the source of the painful stimuli.

This is nothing like "primary mental disorders". As already pointed out, mental disorders come and go. What the APA defines as a mental disorder today may not be a mental disorder tomorrow. What is “treated” as a mental disorder today, may not be treated as a mental disorder tomorrow. Many people who are treated for having a mental disorder are treated against their will. One never has to treat someone for pain against his/her will. Right?

As the DSM notes, “mental disorders,” in their symptoms and impairment, are culturally specific. Pain from nociceptive tissue damage is not culturally specific in its either its symptoms or impairment. Unlike mental disorders, the experience and reaction to painful stimuli are so universal that we can assess pain in a cat. And we know--not just from experience but also from the biology of pain--that no cat will experience pain from merely having her nails clipped or her fur cut. There are no nociceptors in nails or fur.

There is simply no analogy between pain and mental disorders. You are obviously unable to state any analogy between pain and mental disorders.

A great deal is known about the specific neural pathways that signals from nociceptors travel in transmitting the sensation of pain. For instance, here is just a tiny morsel of what is known:

Pain sensation is conveyed from the spinal cord by several central nervous system pathways, the two most important in animals are: (1) the Spinothalamic pathway and (2) the Spinocervicothalamic pathway.

1. The Spinothalamic Pathway: this pathway is classically considered to be the major pain relay system in mammals. . . The organization of the spinothalamic pathway can be summarized as follows:

(A) 1st order Neuron: Cell body located in a spinal (dorsal root) ganglion, Its peripheral process is associated with the receptor, while its central process enters the gray matter of the spinal cord to synapse in the Marginal Nucleus Substantia gelatinosa (lamina II) and Nucleus proprius.

(B). Second order Neuron: cell bodies located in the marginal nucleus and the nucleus proprius. Axons of second order neurons cross the midline and join other axons which also carry pain sensation. These axons form the Spinothalamic tract (see fig. 7). Axons travel to Thalamus.

(C). The axons of 2nd order neurons synapse on 3rd order neurons in the thalamus. The Thalamus is the crucial relay for the reception and processing of nociceptive information in route to the cortex. Axons terminating in the lateral thalamus mediate discrimative aspects of pain. Axons terminating in the medialthalamus mediate the motivational-affective aspects of pain (emotional aspects of pain; attention to and memory of pain).

(D) These 3rd order neurons in the thalamus in turn send their axons to the cerebral cortex. Note: neurons in the lateral thalamus (for discrimination) project to the somatosensory cortex. Neurons in the medial thalamus (for affective aspects of pain project to other areas of cortex (prefrontal, insular and cingulate gyrus).

Note: An animal becomes aware of painful stimuli at the level of the thalamus, the cerebral cortex is required for localization of the pain to a specific body region. It should also be noted that in addition to pain the spinothalamic pathway conveys temperature sensation.

[. . .]

Increases in cerebral blood flow are found in the thalamus and anterior cingulate cortex as stimulus temperature increases.

Notice that the above are not just speculations about pain sensation that are dependent on first assuming the existence of a disorder for which there are objective biological measurements to establish. (You might need to read that sentence more than once.) This is in contrast with the speculations about the various biochemical imbalances claimed to cause various mental disorders.

Pain can be categorized along a variety of dimensions, including one of the most important divisions, nociceptive versus neuropathic pain (NP). Nociceptive pain results from activity in neural pathways secondary to actual tissue damage or potentially tissue-damaging stimuli. NP is chronic pain that is initiated by nervous system lesions or dysfunction and can be maintained by a number of different mechanisms. Three common conditions that are often associated with acute and chronic NP are painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), painful postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), and cancer. Although estimates of DPN vary widely depending on the assessment criteria employed, as many as 50% of people with diabetes have some degree of DPN. PHN develops secondary to herpes zoster infection, and there are 600 000 to 800 000 cases of herpes zoster in the United States each year, with 9% to 24% of patients progressing to PHN. Acute or chronic NP may occur in more than 50% of patients with cancer pain. Patients with painful DPN, PHN, or cancer may present with a variety of acute or chronic NP symptoms, and it is important to distinguish these conditions from other pain syndromes so that appropriate therapy can be initiated.

. . . excess stimulation of nociceptive pathways or damage to inhibitory pathways can alter the balance between painful and nonpainful sensory inputs so that pain results in the absence of nociceptor stimulation.2,4,5 Thus, NP may be present without any readily demonstrable physical findings.5

Thus, while this author claims (in 2006) that neuropathic pain “may be present without any readily demonstrable physical findings,” more recently other researchers have proposed:

. . . a unifying theory or law of pain, which states: The origin of all pain is inflammation and the inflammatory response. The biochemical mediators of inflammation include cytokines, neuropeptides, growth factors and neurotransmitters. Irrespective of the type of pain whether it is acute or chronic pain, peripheral or central pain, nociceptive or neuropathic pain, the underlying origin is inflammation and the inflammatory response. Activation of pain receptors, transmission and modulation of pain signals, neuro plasticity and central sensitization are all one continuum of inflammation and the inflammatory response. Irrespective of the characteristic of the pain, whether it is sharp, dull, aching, burning, stabbing, numbing or tingling, all pain arise from inflammation and the inflammatory response. We are proposing a re-classification and treatment of pain syndromes based upon their inflammatory profile.

In any case, this proposal aside, the author of the AJMC article above provides the definition of pain formulated by the International Association for the Study of Pain:

An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage or described in terms of such damage. (Underlining mine.)

Thus, this definition of the general term “pain” (comparable to the general term “mental disorder”) does reference biological phenomena that are identifiable by objective biological measurements (“tissue damage” and the biological phenomena, noted in previous papers above, involved in the “sensory experience” of pain).

Thus, your P3 is false. Your conclusion is unsound.

My P3 is shown to be true by the diagnostic criteria of the various mental disorders in the DSM, and by the definition of the general term “mental disorder” given in the DSM. There is no reference to any biological phenomena in the diagnostic criteria for any of the particular mental disorders, and the definition of the general term “mental disorder” given in the DSM does not reference any biological phenomena that are identifiable by objective biological measurements. The functional definition of “mental disorder” given in the current DSM is not even consistent with some of the definitions of particular mental disorders (e.g., Delusional Disorder is not even a “mental disorder” according to the functional definition of the general term “mental disorder” given in the DSM).

No, I don’t. And take it that if you knew of any “problem” with my argument, you would have pointed it out. Right?

So many words and studies to completely miss the point.

My P3 is true (and if you try to tell me that every diagnosis of pain is made through biochemical/neurological testing ("objective biological measurements") I'm going to laugh at you) but is irrelevant. Your P3, while true, is also irrelevant. Pain is successfully treated using medications without using "objective biological measurements". Mental disorders are also successfully treated without using "objective biological measurements".

Do you deny that there are thousands of studies showing the successful results of psychotropis medications?

BTW, I understand how pain is transmitted and interpreted by the body, but that doesn't change the fact that if I inflict a certain amount of tissue damage (say, a one inch cut on the hand) to different people, it will not result in the same intensity of pain in every single person. Some people may not be too bothered by it, others will cry out in agony.

There is no general accepted definition of mental health, because there is nothing to measure. Which means, it boils down to opinions, points of view.

For psychiatry, it usually means that someone has enough control of his demons to cross the street without being run over by a bus or is not aggressive enough to engage in what society has decided are undesirable behaviors, like shooting people.

Some authoritarian governments have used it to punish certain ideas or behaviors that run contrary to official policies. It may not be that extreme in Western countries but like allopathic medidicine, psychiatry is just concerned with eliminating certain undesirable symptoms. which is understandable. No doctor would have the time to involve the whole person.

Psychiatry uses drugs because it is based on a materialistic beliefs that the mind is created by biologocal factors and therefore can change by changing the biology .

Eliminating or undermining undesirable symptons is not enogh to call it "mental heath". Mental health involves the whole individual.

Psychiatry has it's place, since an individual must be able to function in some basic level and psychiatrists cannot engage every individual in a holistic approach to the problem. They can only do patch work.

But their dealing with "mental health" is very limited.

The idea that drugs change behavior is based on the materialistic view that the mind is just the result of biology.